View Full Version : Berger is a thief!

07-22-04, 09:31 AM
Former national security adviser Sandy Berger has said, he was sloppy in what he did, that he inadvertently removed “HUNDREDS” of pages of material, that it was an honest mistake. Others including...

07-22-04, 10:10 AM

Do you think some of those classified documents, where used for Kerry, to help him out for the election?



07-22-04, 01:01 PM
Did Sandy Berger “Fry” Flight 800 Records? <br />
July 22, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Tom Kovach <br />

07-22-04, 01:31 PM
"And the truth shall set thee free!"
What might the "truth" be in this instant?
Did Sandy Berger destroy those documents?
He has admit to taking and then they disappeared.
Woulda , Coulda, Shoulda all seem appropriate in this instant.
Who does it favor on release of this partial information?
"And the truth shall set thee free!"
If truth is the first to die in war,
What might be second?
Liar, Liar, pants on fire!
Pray God, where did I hear that recently?

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

Rat Patrol
07-22-04, 03:05 PM
Once again this piece of news reveals that if the connection is made. And

Having spent years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, it is now impossible for Kerry to deny that he had access to information about any link between Flight 800 and terrorist acts."

This information not only justifies us going after Iraq, but makes blows Kerry out of the water.

There is going to be an outcry and this "evil" empire in our midst has got to be exposed.

This is very irritating and makes Clinton and Kerry as guilty of a conspiracy as the terrorist that struck us on 9-11.

07-23-04, 01:01 PM
Publication:The New York Sun; Date:Jul 23, 2004; Section:Editorial &amp; Opinion; Page:10 <br />
<br />
<br />
The Boldness of the President <br />
<br />
Reading the report of the National Commission on Terrorist...

07-23-04, 03:41 PM
What a bunch of right wing CRAP! Jeez...do you people really believe this? Do you not read / watch objective reports on this? Do you really let these idiots who wrote the above do your thinking for you?

This is why we have become a nation of US vs. THEM.

Super Dave
07-23-04, 05:46 PM
Mr. Berger should be stripped of ALL security clearances immediately and never be allowed to have another one. He has admitted to taking the documents and his notes out of the secure room.

07-23-04, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by MAJMike
What a bunch of right wing CRAP! Jeez...do you people really believe this? Do you not read / watch objective reports on this? Do you really let these idiots who wrote the above do your thinking for you?

This is why we have become a nation of US vs. THEM.

From The 9-11 Commission Report.

"On June 25, at Clarke's request, Berger convened the Small Group in his office to discuss the alert, Bin Ladin's WMD programs, and his location. "Should we pre-empt by attacking UBL facilities?" Clarke urged Berger to ask his colleagues. 182 In his handwritten notes on the meeting paper, Berger jotted down the pres-ence of 7 to 11 families in the Tarnak Farms facility, which could mean 60Š 65 casualties. Berger noted the possible "slight impact" on Bin Ladin and added, "if he responds, we're blamed." (page 140)

Richard Clarke interview (Jan. 12, 2004). In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote "no." (page 516)

The others are there as well, you can get a copy of it yourself and read it.

Clinton's cabinet was so wishy washy that Janet Reno discouraged striking at Bin Laden because she feared retailation from Bin laden's group.

How this one for you

From page 133 of the report.

On January 12, 1999, Clarke wrote Berger that the CIA's confidence in the tribals' reporting had increased. It was now higher than it had been on December 20. 133 In February 1999,Allen proposed flying a U-2 mission over Afghanistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the areas where the tribals had cover-age.

Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Ladin might leave for someplace less accessible. He wrote Deputy National Security Advisor Donald Kerrick that one reliable source reported Bin Ladin's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him asylum."

Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not Mullah Omar, had urged Bin Ladin to go to Iraq.

If Bin Ladin actually moved to Iraq, wrote Clarke, his network would be at Saddam Hussein's service, and it would be "vir-tually impossible" to find him. Better to get Bin Ladin in Afghanistan, Clarke declared. 134 Berger suggested sending one U-2 flight, but Clarke opposed even this.

It would require Pakistani approval, he wrote; and "Pak[ istan's] intel[ ligence service] is in bed with" Bin Ladin and would warn him that the United States was getting ready for a bombing campaign: "Armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad." 135 Though told also by Bruce Riedel of the NSC staff that Saddam Hussein wanted Bin Ladin in Baghdad, Berger conditionally authorized a single U-2 flight. Allen meanwhile had found other ways of getting the information he wanted. So the U-2 flight never occurred.


bunch of right wing CRAP?

It was written by the commissioners, that tried throughout the report to cover up for Clinton's weakness and blunders.... but its all there and the news agencies are reading it and not reporting it.

07-23-04, 07:32 PM
If this had been some poor old low end of the totem pole Joe Sh** the Rag Man he would be in the cooler waiting things out. I guess this goes to prove that if you have rank or status and connections there's always a way to get around the system. No new news there! Only a complete idiot could manage to let all those documents magically compile in their brief case and forget to not put them back before leaving. He did it, he got caught, screw him!!

07-23-04, 09:22 PM
Just goes to show how much damage Bill Clinton really did to our country prior to him leaving office. Anymore I don't believe one word of anything our government has to say about 9/11 or Iraq. I think George W. Bush is an outstanding President who has his interests in the right places. He is for America, not against it like Bill Clinton!

And if we get another "Bill Clinton" in office, i.e. John Kerry... we are all super screwed. Back to lies in the White House and doing nothing to terrorists who attack our own soil, including United States embassies.

I think it's about time we take the gloves off and quit pussy footing around to appease the other side!


I think we are on the path to falling straight on our faces! Too many people in our own government feel these very same terrorists should have rights. My question is why? Why give them any rights? They should be killed on the spot, no questions asked if they are truely a wanted terrorist and a enemy of the United States of America!